asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the approximate yield of customs duty on goods imported from the EEC and EEC applicant countries in the most recent period of 12 months for which figures are available.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Customs Duties.
14.
Statistics of the receipts of customs duties are not kept by reference to the countries of origin of the goods involved but it is estimated that the yield of such duties—both fiscal and protective—from goods imported from the EEC and applicant countries in the year 1970 was £37 million.
Would the Minister agree that, if that figure is taken from the amount of money which, it is claimed, will accrue to this country from membership of the EEC, it does show a very different picture from that presented by the Fianna Fáil Party?
Of course, if it were a question of taking that from it, that would be true, but no such question arises.
Why not?
The bulk of these customs duties would and could be substituted for by excise duties and a good deal of the portion that relates to protective duties is already being phased out and will be finally phased out under the Free Trade Area Agreement by 1975.
The Minister is trying to slide out of a rather awkward situation by confusing the matter.
I am giving the facts.
Is the Minister not aware that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has stated repeatedly here that the European Free Trade Area was similar to moving goods from Donegal to Dublin and, if those are the circumstances under which goods will be moved, what he is saying is absolute nonsense.
I would not agree at all. What the Deputy says is nonsense. I have already told the Deputy in reply to a similar previous question that this kind of calculation is very approximate. It is, of course, affected by what will happen within the EEC in regard to the harmonisation of duties and rates of duties but, leaving that question aside, as it stands at the moment this figure I have mentioned of £37 million in respect of fiscal and protective duties will be in the main replaced by excise duties and, in so far as the portion of it which relates to protective duties is concerned, these will go anyway, in the main, whether we go into EEC or not. These are relevant facts. I know the Deputy does not like them but that is how it is.
The Deputy does not like them not because they are facts but because they are being twisted to suit the Minister's book.
Perhaps the Deputy would explain what he means by saying they are being twisted?
They are being used by the Minister because until today the Minister was not prepared to give the figure nor was his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Now he is giving the figure and he wants to say that while the figure is there, £37 million, it is not there and that will not be accepted by this House.
If anybody can be accused of twisting facts it is the Deputy.
We shall wait and see.
Will the Minister say what proportion of these duties are being replaced by excise duties? Will it be 80 per cent?
It would probably be somewhere in the region of £25 million.
Is that the amount that would be replaced by excise duties?
Approximately.
What proportion of the total?
Twenty-five million pounds out of £37 million.
That is only a guess.
I explained to the Deputy last week that these are only approximate. There are other factors that will come into it in future but leaving them aside and trying to do the calculation on the terms the Deputy wanted, the position is as I have explained.
The only reason I asked for these terms is because the Minister would not give the figures under any other terms except of approximation.
How much of the £37 million is protective duties at present?
About £10 million.